Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Blog 1 - Eden



               In Franz Kafka’s parable “Before the Law,” a man from the country seeks entry into the law but is told by the gatekeeper that he cannot be granted entry at that particular moment. Depending on the reading given, the tale can be interpreted in many different ways. My groups reading used Marxist criticism as the method that gave the most convincing argument. The main reason my group chose this approach as due to the clearly different social standings of the countryman and the gatekeeper. One example was the appearance of the gatekeeper, in his with his fur coat along with well defined facial features; the countryman based his judgement on these factors that he should wait for the permission of the gatekeeper before heading inside the law. There was a clear distinction of a higher class than the countryman’s own through the mentioning of the gatekeeper’s garb. Another example was when the gatekeeper mentions that should the man from the country try to ignore his prohibition, that he was powerful and that there were many others beside himself that were each more and more powerful. My group thought that this was a clear reference to a socioeconomic hierarchy, in which the country man was at the very bottom and that meant he was quite powerless in face of the gatekeeper who was above him, along with many others in the rungs overhead.
               Another type of reading that could apply to the parable is the psychological literary criticism. The gates to the law are stated to be standing open, as always, and the countryman himself thinks that the law should always be accessible for everyone. However, the gatekeeper denies him access to the law. Within the countryman’s mind, there is never the thought of just brazenly going through the gate; the gatekeeper has never made any physical attempts to block the countryman, only verbal. This may indicate that the only thing keeping the countryman access to the law is his own mind. The countryman is set on getting the gatekeeper’s approval that he spends his time waiting. This fixation drives him to the border of his sanity as he even resorts to asking the fleas on the gatekeeper’s fur coat to help persuade the gatekeeper. The repeated denial of his entry into the law drives the countryman to madness as he keeps to his stubbornness of seeking permission. When the countryman is on his deathbed and asks why there was no one else who requested entry, the gatekeeper tells him that the gate was for his use only. Even the last thing the gatekeeper says to the countryman could be an allusion to the mental block of his own mind. The countryman always had access to the law but the only thing keeping him from it was himself. The man thought the law was anyone’s to use but he sought permission to gain entry to it, making it seem that the law was not in fact for everyone when it was.

Word Count: 500

2 comments:

  1. I think that you presented a great argument for both Marxist and Psychological criticism that was straight to the point and was easy to understand with the help of short summaries of the text. However, I think that you could have made your claims a little stronger by including textual evidence from the story. By doing so, it allows the reader to be further persuaded with reason. Besides that, I really did enjoy your post since you clearly explained how you gained a different insight through other people's perspective of the text.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Overall, I think you did a great job explaining your viewpoints. I enjoyed reading about your interpretation on how the reading was either Marxist or Psychologically interpretable.

    The examples you included in the post were good examples. Providing a little more evidence or detail with these examples would help clarify why you belive your approaches apply to this reading.

    ReplyDelete